Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

The Democrats are talking about how they need to close the Terror Watch loophole. This sounds like something that is so common sense on the surface. Why would you want people that are on the Terror Watch List to be able to buy guns? The reason is: because they can put ANYBODY on the list. They just have to come up with a criteria. Bear in mind, these are the same people that wanted to put veterans and people that demand adherence to the Constitution on the domestic terrorism list. Based on that, I’d be rather heartbroken if I WASN’T on the list already.

I remember when Bush came up with the Terror Watch List. The Liberals cried their eyes out about how people on this list have no way to see the evidence against them and no way to clear their name. Now they want to take away a Constitutional right.

Hell, based on that logic, let’s take away other rights too if the government decides to put you on the list of people that do not deserve Constitutional rights. Why let these supposed terrorists have freedom of speech? Why let them vote? Why allow them to be Muslim…since Islam does seem to be something to keep out of the hands of some people. Ooo, let’s deny them the right to vote. If your viewpoints are different than those in power, you could end up being a terrorist, after all. We don’t want terrorist voting, do we? Do they need a right to a trial? What about slavery? Ooooo, can we use political dissents as slaves? Neat! Hell, let’s just save the trouble and round them up for re-education/extermination camps.

Well, it took the Democratic candidates about ten seconds to blame the San Bernardino shootings on the NRA and lax gun laws. Of course…I mean, this was San Bernardino. Not Georgia or Texas or Montana or something…but whatever, sure…it’s gun laws.

So we all had to sit there and watch for hours while the media and people tried not to say the obvious…that this is Islamic terrorism. Of course it’s terrorism. You have an attack very similar to what happened in Paris with no motivation other than the slaughter of defenseless people. But we can’t say it’s Muslim Terrorists…that would be stereotyping. Let’s be honest…in an act of terror against random, defenseless people…bet Muslim. It’s a safe bet.

I am looking forward to Obama’s speech. I think it will go something like this:

“Now, let’s not rush to judgement. We should not demean an entire religion for the acts of a few people. Islam is a religion of peace, and anyone that kills innocent people is not a true Muslim. That being said, let’s demean all guns because they were the tool of choice for some false-Muslims to kill innocent people. The only way for us to be safe is to ban all guns and get the Syrian refugees over IMMEDIATELY!”

Cold dead hands, yo! Cold dead hands…just sayin’. Most of the people on the stage want people to be able to sue gun manufacturers for wrongful deaths. Let us be honest: This is just an attempt to ban guns. Anytime someone is murdered, the gun manufacturer will be sued. They will be forced out of business by trial lawyers. If you support this, I have one question: what is the difference between being able to sue gun manufacturers like is and knife makers for stabbings or Jack Daniels for drunk driving deaths (it goes on and on). If you are for this, you are devoid of any logic in your desire for “by any means necessary” disarming.

Good gawd…this was the most boring thing I have ever seen. These are the slowest talking, most boring people I have ever seen in my entire life… So let’s go down the list.

Hillary Clinton: ”Fascist.” She was handled with kid gloves, of course. If I heard her say “First female President” one more time… ”How would you be different than Obama?” ”I have boobs!” Okay… Let’s be honest. The chick is a neo-fascist. She wants to control everything. She wants to spy on you. And like all other people on the stage (excluding one), she thinks she can get the wealthy to pay for everything. This is impossible. We cannot do what the other “advanced” nations do. You know why? Because WE DEFEND THE —-ING WORLD! If we tried, we would have to gut the military completely. This would allow all the bad countries to do whatever they want (as they have already started doing anyway). Be ready for a lot more blood in the future.

Bernie Sanders: ”Socialist.” But hey, at least he’s true to who he is. He would be an utter disaster for this country on all fronts, but at least he’s being honest with who he is. Give him that. I think it’s cute how he thinks the Russian people will hold Putin accountable. It’s Russia. They LIKE totalitarians. It’s part of their social makeup. Why do people try to play with the rest of the world under the assumption that the rest of the world is like America? It’s not.

Mike O’Malley: “Socialist.” He strikes me as a weakling that likes to talk a big game. He went on and on about guns. Of course, all that he proposed wouldn’t have done anything to stop any of the shootings, but that doesn’t stop Democrats. Yes. The DO want your guns. What is the point of any gun control if the end purpose isn’t total confiscation? Leave it up to the States. The Feds don’t have to do ANYTHING for guns.

Lincoln Chafee: Ya know… nice to see an old school Liberal. I didn’t like how he pinned his “bad vote” on his dead dad. Not cool, dude, but overall, not the worst guy up there (but damn if that’s a low bar…). Still, anti-gun. Tax and Spend.

Jim Webb: Holy cow! Ya know, if he won the Presidency, I wouldn’t be happy, but I would be terrified outta my mind. Seems like a rational dude that has thought out his positions and doesn’t feel the need to toe the party line. I also like that he admitted you have a right to defend yourself. He was the only one that said “all lives matter.” That’s a new lithmus test. If you cannot say “all lives matter,” you are weak-willed slime, and I can’t have any respect for you.

So another mass shooting occurred. It took Obama about two minutes to make a statement. Of course, his statement was: ”This has become routine. What I’m going to say has become routine…” Yeah, so shut the ____ up. Don’t you get it? We do not want what you are selling. Of course, the usual things came up.

“We must have greater gun control! We’re not after all guns, we just want some common sense gun control.”

Okay, well, what would you have recommended then? Perhaps an assault rifle ban or universal background checks or a registry or something like that. Okay, well, how would that have stopped this? Do you think that he couldn’t have killed just as many or more people with a sawed off shotgun? Of course, hammers kill more people in a year than assault rifles. Most gun deaths come from handguns. Over half of all deaths are suicides (more on that later). Even taking those out, hoodlums with pistols are much more of a problem than “assault rifles.”

“No one should be able to get these kinds of weapons.”

Right, so lets make them illegal. That way, no one can get them. Just like drugs. Face-plant. Move on.

“We could save the lives of those who commit suicide.”

Interesting that the Democrats are all over assisted suicide, but somehow think it’s their higher purpose to ban guns to prevent suicide. Ends justify the means? Of course. They don’t care if you live or die. Hell, if you are an older, Southern White Male, they’d probably prefer you die. Just saying.

“You are more likely to be harmed by a gun in your house than protected by it.”

Oh, that suicide statistic keeps paying dividends, doesn’t it?! Of course, the people trying to take your guns don’t live in the ghetto or out in the woods by themselves. Most of them live in well-to-do neighborhoods with dedicated police forces protecting them (assuming they don’t have their own security staff). But hey, they’ll keep you safe.

Hillary made some comment about how we are willing to accept the occasional act of mass murder as the price of having the right to keep and bear arms. I’ll tell you the truth. YEP, I am. I am much more afraid that our government will go ape-shit crazy and start oppressing the hell out of us than I am about a murderer. I have a feeling, if you ask the average American which he had more fear of: the government running amok or that he may be a victim of a violent crime, I think more people would fear the first.

I am unwilling to give up the right to keep and bear arms because it the the last line defense of life and liberty. You can quote me any crime statistic you want. That will never change this fact.

Also, laws will not make you safer. If it did, there would be no rape. There would be no murder. There would be no child molestation. The only thing that makes you safe is morality. Interestingly enough, the Left is all about undermining the one thing that will make our society safer while expanding the thing which makes us less safe (the government).

I intend a certain amount of disrespect when I call him Mayor Blooming Idiot, but that’s just because I think he’s a fascist moron. He’s living proof that intelligence and being a billionaire don’t have to go together. Now he questions why a father would sell a gun to his son rather than just give it to him. Of course, to a billionaire, maybe a few hundred dollars is but a tawdry sum not worth mentioning. I can think of a few reasons, but I don’t think it really matters. Here is the real issue.

Can anyone tell me how many of the guns used in mass killings were purchased illegally? Has ANYONE thought to ask? Does ANYONE care? If you found out that they all came through a registered dealer and were obtained legally, would it even matter to you? Of course, if you are against guns, that would merely prove your point that all guns need to be illegal, right? And that’s what this is all about. It’s about chipping away at the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens because they can’t possibly advance their agenda with the truth.

Do you care that none of the laws being proposed would have stopped any of the mass killing in the recent past? And yet, we are treated to Obama leading around Sandy Hook survivors like trained ponies in front of the camera, begging us to advance his agenda, and for what?! Are they just ignorant of the law? Are the Democrats merely exploiting these people in a moment of pain the way the are trying to exploit all of us by putting these mourners on stage for us to gawk at like some side show freaks?

They claim that 90% of us are for expanded background checks. First of all, I question how many of us care to be informed. Most mass shooters do not have anything in their records that would have prevented them from purchasing guns to start with. Actually, what would be a better solution is to force everyone to go through a thorough medical and mental screening every single year to address these types of issues and those who would be prone to commit other crimes. So why don’t we do that? Because it’s an invasive breach of our rights? Because sacrificing the rights of everyone isn’t wroth the lives we’d save?

We do agree in background checks. I would say that most people would even agree to adding background checks to gun shows. However, what they are talking about doing is adding checks to every single gun sale even among friends and other private individuals. Of course, the only way to accomplish or enforce this is to make a national registry. This is, of course, what they say they do not want to do. Over time, they will either lose interest in these meaningless background checks or they will push for a national registry. I’m betting that the Democrats will do the second one.

Let’s accept something, and this is more poignant in the wake of the Boston Marathon attack. In a free society, there are going to be cases where people break the law and bad things happen. When this happens, you can do one of two things. You can either accept that this is part of the human condition and punish the guilt, or you can take away the rights from everyone. Bear in mind, doing the first one won’t make you any safer as criminals will continue to break the laws.

When I say Colorado, what do you think of? Mountain men? Rugged individuals? Outdoorsy types? Campers? Hunters? So forth? So, why is it that they are on the verge of passing some of the craziest gun laws in the country that will do nothing to reduce gun deaths? So why is this? Well, I know that Colorado has become a Mecca for pot lovers and X-treme gamers and what not. Maybe the crazies have out paced the rugged individualists? Oh, Heaven help us. It is clear that the Democratic party is hungry to make an example state. What better example state than Colorado? A state where they have the power to pull it off without opposition? A state which is synonymous with rugged masculinity? I hate to break it to them, it is going to backfire and backfire royally. The normal people are going to slaughter the Democrats in the next election. You will also see extreme grass roots movements to counter any attempts at gun control. Finally, you will see NRA membership skyrocket.

Question: A liberal woman who has been promoting the banning of all guns is in her bedroom, and a rapist has just kicked in the front door. A Genie appears before her. He offers her two choices: a 12 gauge shotgun or a cell phone to call the police. Which do you think she will choose? Of course, a gun control proponent would say, “Of course under those circumstances she would want a gun!” But the thing is…you never know when or if that moment is ever going to happen. If it does, it’s too late to arm yourself (Check out the Boar and the Fox Aesop fable).

Rosanne Barr actually came out and promoted women using guns to defend themselves from rapists. I have to somehow reconcile myself to the unthinkable…that I agree with Rosanne about something! Guns are a great equalizer. I personally don’t know why any woman wouldn’t choose to have a gun which would level the playing field between a woman and a possible rapist.

Meanwhile, Joe Salazar and other Colorado Democrats don’t believe that women can be trusted to use a gun judiciously. They recommend whistles, the buddy system, pepper spray, or judo. Anyone that encourages a 110 pound woman to learn judo as a defense against a 200 pound rapist is a moron. A well trained martial artist may defeat a much larger opponent…unless that opponent is also a skilled fighter or just tougher than they are. At any rate, fighting is survival. It’s not a game. It’s kill or be killed. If the girl loses, she gets raped or worse. It would be doubtful that someone would be able to devote the time necessary to become skilled anyway. An hour a week isn’t going to cut it. The scenario Joe believes in, that women are going to go around killing men who are just trying to flirt with them, is asinine. This rates up there with people who were outraged that Zimmerman didn’t take the beating from Trayvon Martin for a while before merely assuming that Trayvon was trying to kill him. If a man had you pinned on the ground beating you in the face, how long do you think it would take you to pull the trigger?

I wonder if a big man was trying to rape Joe, how long it would take him before he was willing to use deadly force.

I’ve said it before, but now there is proof. Rahm is asking banks to pressure gun manufacturers to go along with “common sense” gun control by cutting them off from funds if they do not comply. Okay, this is what happens under Fascism. You play ball, or you starve. Could you imagine if bankers tried that against the labor unions? What if they did it against people for promoting gay marriage? I could do this all day. The banks have no right to deny someone a loan because of their political, religious, or any other belief. If you think otherwise, think how you would feel if you couldn’t get a mortgage because of who you voted for? In Communist Russia, if you didn’t toe the party line, you didn’t eat. This is the same thing. Extortion. Nothing else.

On 9/11, a small group of Muslims hijacked a plane and killed 3,000 people. Rather than focus on targeting likely terrorists or doing behavioral profiling or anything of the sort, we decided to infringe on everybody’s freedom of privacy. Instead of being unfair to a small group, we will be unfair to everyone, and that is fair. Now a man used a gun to kill 20 children. Do we punish that one guy? Do we try to target those individuals who are likely do do something like this? Or do we be unfair to everyone by making harder for everyone to get a gun? Fair is fair! For the wrongs of one man, let us sacrifice our rights to the greater good! For the collective! Proletarians unite!

Here’s a couple of warning signs of fascist totalitarianism. Totalitarianists love to use little children to push their agenda. This is because seeing children ramps up the emotional side of us and defeats our rational thought. We will agree to destroy our freedoms to “protect the children” which represents the future. However, these are false promises. All that happens is we give up our own freedoms and rob our children the right to enjoy those freedoms.

That brings us to the second issue. New York is forcing law abiding citizens to register their “assault weapons.” If they do not renew this registration every five years, it becomes a felony. Yeah, no one has forgotten to renew their driver’s license, and that’s something that they use daily. I wonder if criminals are going to bother registering their weapons. Nope? Then, again, this is just a law that penalizes the law abiding citizens, and to what end? In history, registration of guns always leads to confiscation which leads to mass graves (Germany, Russia, China).

No lives are going to be saved by any of these measures that the President took. If you banned all assault weapons, criminals will just use whatever weapon they can find. A shotgun will kill ya just as good as an AR-15 any day and twice on Sundays. Making doctors tattle on their patients will have the possible side-effect of preventing these people from seeking help in the first place. Doctors have an obligation to notify police if they feel their patients pose a real threat to someone. Right now, I’m recommending that people lie to their doctors and tell them that they do not own a gun if they are asked.

I’m sick of how this President operates. Mark my words, when they start marching out kids that have been coached by party liners to advance the agenda, there’s trouble brewing. Don’t be fooled. Let’s let our kids be kids, and we’ll be grown-ups and actually deal with the problem. If you ask a kid, they might tell you we should end homelessness by giving everyone a house. Kids aren’t equipped to solve grown-up problems. However, I can understand why Obama would want to surround himself with children. It must feel like a Democratic National Convention.